suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

janek.lilypond
Hi,

The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
"transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
We can also change names of some related context properties, for
example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
ClefTransposition).
Thoughts?

I'll propose a patch if there's support for the change.
Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Marc Hohl
Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:

> Hi,
>
> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
> this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
> "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
> I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
> similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
> use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
> ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
> We can also change names of some related context properties, for
> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
> that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
> ClefTransposition).
> Thoughts?

+1

I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.

Marc
>
> I'll propose a patch if there's support for the change.
> Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

bobroff@centrum.is
Just a thought:

LilyPond allows for any number, not just "8," so doesn't ClefTransposition actually make more sense?

-David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Hohl" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:35:56 AM
Subject: Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:

> Hi,
>
> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
> this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
> "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
> I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
> similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
> use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
> ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
> We can also change names of some related context properties, for
> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
> that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
> ClefTransposition).
> Thoughts?

+1

I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.

Marc
>
> I'll propose a patch if there's support for the change.
> Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Marc Hohl
Marc Hohl <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
>> this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
>> "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
>> I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
>> similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
>> use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
>> ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
>> We can also change names of some related context properties, for
>> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
>> that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
>> ClefTransposition).
>> Thoughts?
>
> +1
>
> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
> implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.

I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like

    `clefOctavation' (integer)
          Add this much extra octavation.  Values of 7 and -7 are
          common.

does not make sense.  Transposition is not really accurate since the
number is in steps rather than diatonic.  It is a bit disconcerting that
values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers 8, 8, 15 and 15.

I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch shifting
after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to use "offset".

--
David Kastrup


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition -opinions?

Trevor Daniels

David Kastrup wrote Saturday, April 06, 2013 10:44 PM

> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like

+1

Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

janek.lilypond
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
Hi,

2013/4/6 David Kastrup <[hidden email]>:

> Marc Hohl <[hidden email]> writes:
>> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
>> implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.
>
> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like
>
>     `clefOctavation' (integer)
>           Add this much extra octavation.  Values of 7 and -7 are
>           common.
>
> does not make sense.  Transposition is not really accurate since the
> number is in steps rather than diatonic.  It is a bit disconcerting that
> values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers 8, 8, 15 and 15.

ClefModifier sounds nice.
So, do you think that the grob should be named ClefModifier and the
context property clefModifier (clefModification maybe?), or would it
be better to have
ClefModifier and clefTransposition?  Or yet another combination, like
ClefModifier and clefModifierAmount?

> I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch shifting
> after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to use "offset".

Well, i would avoid "shift" because it can be confused with the
situation when the clef is actually placed on a different vertical
position (\clef treble vs. \clef french).

best,
Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Marc Hohl
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
Am 06.04.2013 23:44, schrieb David Kastrup:

> Marc Hohl <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
>>> this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
>>> "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
>>> I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
>>> similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
>>> use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
>>> ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
>>> We can also change names of some related context properties, for
>>> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
>>> that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
>>> ClefTransposition).
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
>> implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.
>
> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like

+1

>
>      `clefOctavation' (integer)
>            Add this much extra octavation.  Values of 7 and -7 are
>            common.
>
> does not make sense.  Transposition is not really accurate since the
> number is in steps rather than diatonic.  It is a bit disconcerting that
> values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers 8, 8, 15 and 15.
>
> I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch shifting
> after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to use "offset".
>


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

pls-2

Am 07.04.2013 um 10:14 schrieb Marc Hohl <[hidden email]>:

> Am 06.04.2013 23:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Marc Hohl <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
>>>> this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
>>>> "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
>>>> I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
>>>> similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
>>>> use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
>>>> ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
>>>> We can also change names of some related context properties, for
>>>> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
>>>> that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
>>>> ClefTransposition).
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
>>> implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.
>>
>> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like
I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to ClefModifier because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to me).  ClefModifier could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of the symbol.

>
> +1
>
>>
>>     `clefOctavation' (integer)
>>           Add this much extra octavation.  Values of 7 and -7 are
>>           common.
>>
>> does not make sense.  Transposition is not really accurate since the
>> number is in steps rather than diatonic.  It is a bit disconcerting that
>> values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers 8, 8, 15 and 15.
>>
>> I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch shifting
>> after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to use "offset".
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

David Kastrup
pls <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 07.04.2013 um 10:14 schrieb Marc Hohl <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Am 06.04.2013 23:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Marc Hohl <[hidden email]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
>>>>> this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
>>>>> "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
>>>>> I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
>>>>> similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
>>>>> use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
>>>>> ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
>>>>> We can also change names of some related context properties, for
>>>>> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
>>>>> that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
>>>>> ClefTransposition).
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
>>>> implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.
>>>
>>> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like
> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to ClefModifier
> because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to me).  ClefModifier
> could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of the symbol.

Well, we _are_ talking about a visual modification, and the specified
number is not an actual ottavation.

For example, something like

{ \clef "treble_5" c d e f }

would be just perfect for commandeering a violin player off to viola
duty.  Ok, there _is_ some slight key signature problem...

--
David Kastrup


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Ian Hulin
In reply to this post by pls-2
Hi All
On 07/04/13 10:00, pls wrote:

>
> Am 07.04.2013 um 10:14 schrieb Marc Hohl <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Am 06.04.2013 23:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Marc Hohl <[hidden email]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it
>>>>> doesn't show that this grob is related to the clef, and
>>>>> anyway the clef can be "transposed" by any amount, not just
>>>>> an octave. I suggest to rename this grob to
>>>>> ClefTransposition or something similar (since this is not
>>>>> strictly transposition, it may be best to use a slightly
>>>>> different name... ClefShift? At any rate, ClefOctavation
>>>>> would make much more sense than OctavateEight). We can also
>>>>> change names of some related context properties, for
>>>>> example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only
>>>>> worry is that they may become too similar
>>>>> (clefTransposition and ClefTransposition). Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the
>>>> latter implies some shift relative to the clef's default
>>>> position.
>>>
>>> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like
> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to
> ClefModifier because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to
> me).  ClefModifier could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of
> the symbol.
1+
The only numbers that make sense above or below clefs are ones
referring to a whole number of octaves (8, 15 etc.)

>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>> `clefOctavation' (integer) Add this much extra octavation.
>>> Values of 7 and -7 are common.
>>>
>>> does not make sense.  Transposition is not really accurate
>>> since the number is in steps rather than diatonic.  It is a bit
>>> disconcerting that values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers
>>> 8, 8, 15 and 15.
>>>
>>> I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch
>>> shifting after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to
>>> use "offset".
>>>
>>
<... snip ...>
Cheers, Ian



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

janek.lilypond
2013/4/7 Ian Hulin <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to
>> ClefModifier because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to
>> me).  ClefModifier could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of
>> the symbol.
>
> 1+
> The only numbers that make sense above or below clefs are ones
> referring to a whole number of octaves (8, 15 etc.)

I don't agree.  Personally, i think that transposing instruments could
use the non-octave modifiers to make their transposition clearer.
Anyway, since we allow non-octave modifications, it's better to
reflect that in the naming.

Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Thomas Morley
In reply to this post by Ian Hulin
2013/4/7 Ian Hulin <[hidden email]>:

> The only numbers that make sense above or below clefs are ones
> referring to a whole number of octaves (8, 15 etc.)

I know at least one piece using a \clef "G_5"

"Chiton"
Uroš Roijko
Verlag Neue Musik, Berlin
NM 852

It's a piece for Solo-Guitar using  a three staves layout:
1. RhythimicStaff (alternating with PercussionStaff and normal Staff)
2. DynamicStaff with TimeSignatures, etc
3. Staff with \clef "G_8"

I don't have a scanner, I reproduced the clef using some LilyPond
(note the bracket!)
-> attached png

So it'd vote for ClefModifier.

-Harm

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

clef-5-mod.png (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

David Kastrup
Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:

> 2013/4/7 Ian Hulin <[hidden email]>:
>
>> The only numbers that make sense above or below clefs are ones
>> referring to a whole number of octaves (8, 15 etc.)
>
> I know at least one piece using a \clef "G_5"
>
> "Chiton"
> Uroš Roijko
> Verlag Neue Musik, Berlin
> NM 852
>
> It's a piece for Solo-Guitar using  a three staves layout:
> 1. RhythimicStaff (alternating with PercussionStaff and normal Staff)
> 2. DynamicStaff with TimeSignatures, etc
> 3. Staff with \clef "G_8"
>
> I don't have a scanner, I reproduced the clef using some LilyPond

A digital camera does not produce even lighting, but for simple
demonstrations it is better than nothing.

--
David Kastrup


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Thomas Morley
2013/4/7 David Kastrup <[hidden email]>:

> Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> 2013/4/7 Ian Hulin <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> The only numbers that make sense above or below clefs are ones
>>> referring to a whole number of octaves (8, 15 etc.)
>>
>> I know at least one piece using a \clef "G_5"
>>
>> "Chiton"
>> Uroš Roijko
>> Verlag Neue Musik, Berlin
>> NM 852
>>
>> It's a piece for Solo-Guitar using  a three staves layout:
>> 1. RhythimicStaff (alternating with PercussionStaff and normal Staff)
>> 2. DynamicStaff with TimeSignatures, etc
>> 3. Staff with \clef "G_8"
>>
>> I don't have a scanner, I reproduced the clef using some LilyPond
>
> A digital camera does not produce even lighting, but for simple
> demonstrations it is better than nothing.
I don't have a digital camera, too.
Though, my girl friends mobile phone camera worked.

-Harm

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

rojko.jpg (74K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

janek.lilypond
In reply to this post by pls-2
2013/4/7 pls <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I think I'd like ClefModifier.
>
> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to ClefModifier
> because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to me).  ClefModifier
> could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of the symbol.

In a way it is altering the symbol - by adding a number to it.
My friend suggests ClefPitchModifier - what'd you think?

Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

bobroff@centrum.is
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janek Warchoł" <[hidden email]>
To: "pls" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "LilyPond Developmet Team" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:47:52 PM
Subject: Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

2013/4/7 pls <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I think I'd like ClefModifier.
>
> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to ClefModifier
> because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to me).  ClefModifier
> could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of the symbol.

In a way it is altering the symbol - by adding a number to it.
My friend suggests ClefPitchModifier - what'd you think?

Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


I still think the most logical thing is ClefTransposition.  As has been pointed out already, LilyPond currently allows arbitrary clef transpositions.  Also, "octavation" is actually a *specific variety* of transposition.

-David

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

Werner LEMBERG
In reply to this post by janek.lilypond

> My friend suggests ClefPitchModifier - what'd you think?

Sounds good.


    Werner

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

bobroff@centrum.is


----- Original Message -----
From: "Werner LEMBERG" <[hidden email]>
To: "janek lilypond" <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 4:07:35 AM
Subject: Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?


> My friend suggests ClefPitchModifier - what'd you think?

Sounds good.


    Werner

Once again:

Pitch modification = transposition

-David

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley
Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:

> 2013/4/7 David Kastrup <[hidden email]>:
>
>> A digital camera does not produce even lighting, but for simple
>> demonstrations it is better than nothing.
>
> I don't have a digital camera, too.
> Though, my girl friends mobile phone camera worked.

Actually, it's not just the clef where I am without a clue how to play
this, or on what instrument...

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

pls-2
On 08.04.2013, at 09:56, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> 2013/4/7 David Kastrup <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> A digital camera does not produce even lighting, but for simple
>>> demonstrations it is better than nothing.
>>
>> I don't have a digital camera, too.
>> Though, my girl friends mobile phone camera worked.
>
> Actually, it's not just the clef where I am without a clue how to play
> this, or on what instrument…
Is this piece supposed to be played on a baritone guitar (tuned a perfect fifth lower than standard guitar tuning)?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
12